Chesapeake Bay 2017 Midpoint Assessment Policy Issues for Partnership Decisions. Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Meeting December 4-5, 2017

Transcription

1 Chesapeake Bay 2017 Midpoint Assessment Policy Issues for Partnership Decisions Water Quality Goal Implementation Team Meeting December 4-5, 2017

2 PSC Approved Schedule December 19-20, 2017: PSC 2-day retreat and decision making December 22, 2017: Release of draft Phase III WIP planning targets December 22, 2017 April 20, 2018: Partnership s review of the draft Phase III WIP planning targets Late April/Early May 2018: PSC approval of the final Phase III WIP planning targets with any agreed-to special cases May 7, 2018: Release of the final Phase III WIP planning targets 2

3

4

5 Decisions Recommendations to the PSC Formally Adopt the Phase 6 Suite of Models Determine the Assimilative Capacity of the Bay Accounting for Climate Change Accounting for Growth Accounting for Conowingo 5

6 Adoption of the Phase 6 Suite of Models Approved with one caveat Approved for purposed of calibration and setting planning targets Future scenarios have one minor detail to be sorted out this week 6

7 Determining the Bay s Ability to Absorb Pollutants (Assimilative Capacity) Dave Montali, WV, CBP Modeling Workgroup Co-Chair and Rich Batiuk, U.S. EPA CBPO Associate Director for Science, Analysis and Implementation 7

8 Segments Attaining Oxygen Standards: Deep-Water Use No Action 1985 Progress 1990 Progress 1993 Progress 2000 Progress 2010 Progress 2013 Progress WIP+18%TN & +12%TP WIP+6%TN & +4%TP WIP2 WIP-6%TN & -8%TP WIP-11%TN & -16%TP E3 All Forest 404TN 347TN 338TN 337TN 317TN 266TN 253TN 224TN 205TN 195TN 185TN 174TN 133TN 40TN 41.7TP 30.4TP 27.7TP TP 16.9TP 15.9TP 14.8TP TP 13.0TP 11.9TP 8.6TP 3.9TP

9 Segments Attaining Oxygen Standards: Deep-Channel Use No Action 1985 Progress 1990 Progress 1993 Progress 2000 Progress 2010 Progress 2013 Progress WIP+18%TN & +12%TP WIP+6%TN & +4%TP WIP2 WIP-6%TN & -8%TP WIP-11%TN & -16%TP E3 All Forest 404TN 347TN 338TN 337TN 317TN 266TN 253TN 224TN 205TN 195TN 185TN 174TN 133TN 40TN 41.7TP 30.4TP 27.7TP TP 16.9TP 15.9TP 14.8TP TP 13.0TP 11.9TP 8.6TP 3.9TP

10 Addressing Open-Water Problem Segments Segment Name Segment Code Bay TMDL 1 Rationale for Designation as Problem Segment 2 Gunpowder River GUNOH Yes Not well represented in WQSTM, non-responsive to load reductions Upper Patuxent River PAXTF No Extensive tidal wetlands, non-responsive to load reductions Western Branch Patuxent River WBRTF No Not well represented in WQSTM, non-responsive to load reductions Upper Pamunkey River PMKTF Yes Extensive tidal wetlands, non-responsive to load reductions Corrotoman River CRRMH No Not well represented in WQSTM, non-responsive to load reductions East Branch Elizabeth River EBEMH No Not well represented in WQSTM, non-responsive to load reductions South Branch Elizabeth River SBEMH No Not well represented in WQSTM, non-responsive to load reductions West Branch Elizabeth River WBEMH Yes Not well represented in WQSTM, non-responsive to load reductions Wicomico River WICMH Yes Not well represented in WQSTM, non-responsive to load reductions 1. Chesapeake Bay segment previously identified and documented in the 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL report as a problem segment, defined as a segment where changes in model simulated water quality standards non-attainment are essentially non-responsive to significant changes in nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions over a very wide range of loads. 2. More detailed documentation on the rationale for identification of these specific nine segments as problem segments and why they were not considered in calculation of the Bay s assimilative capacity will be provided in the Partnership s Midpoint Assessment report in spring

11 Segments Attaining Oxygen Standards: Open-Water Use No Action 1985 Progress 1990 Progress 1993 Progress 2000 Progress 2010 Progress 2013 Progress WIP+18%TN & +12%TP WIP+6%TN & +4%TP WIP2 WIP-6%TN & -8%TP WIP-11%TN & -16%TP E3 All Forest 404TN 347TN 338TN 337TN 317TN 266TN 253TN 224TN 205TN 195TN 185TN 174TN 133TN 40TN 41.7TP 30.4TP 27.7TP TP 16.9TP 15.9TP 14.8TP TP 13.0TP 11.9TP 8.6TP 3.9TP

12 Determining the Bay s Ability to Absorb Pollutants No Action 1985 Progress 1990 Progress 1993 Progress 2000 Progress 2010 Progress 2013 Progress WIP+18%TN & +12%TP WIP+6%TN & +4%TP WIP2 WIP-6%TN & -8%TP WIP-11%TN & -16%TP E3 All Forest 404TN 347TN 338TN 337TN 317TN 266TN 253TN 224TN 205TN 195TN 185TN 174TN 133TN 40TN 41.7TP 30.4TP 27.7TP TP 16.9TP 15.9TP 14.8TP TP 13.0TP 11.9TP 8.6TP 3.9TP

13 Agreement for WIP II as Assimilative Capacity At 195 million lbs. nitrogen and 13.7 million lbs. phosphorus, we reach: Loading levels where all segments designated uses, except CB4 deepchannel, come into attainment Point of diminishing returns for the increased level of reductions approaching E3 13

14 Agreement to support WQ Standards Variances Support Maryland updating their water quality standards regulations existing restoration variances Change CB4 deep-channel from 2 percent to 6 percent Change CB4 deep-water from 7 percent to 5 percent No change to the Eastern Bay restoration variance of 2 percent Remove the lower Chester River deep-channel restoration variance of 16 percent Remove the Patapsco River deep-water restoration variance of 7 percent 14

15 Proposed Draft Phase III Planning Targets Gary Shenk, USGS, CBP Phase 6 Watershed Model Coordinator 15

16 Three Partnership Principals for Planning Targets Allocated loads must result in achievement of the states Bay water quality standards Major river basins that contribute the most to Bay water quality problems must do the most to resolve those problems All tracked and reported reductions in loads are credited toward achieving assigned loads 16

17 More Impact, Do More Nitrogen Phosphorus 17

18 Defining the Controllable Load No Action: Watershed conditions with minimal to no controls on load, Wastewater at primary treatment E3 or Everything by Everyone, Everywhere : Watershed conditions with maximum controls on loads, regardless of cost Wastewater at high level of nutrient control 3mg/l TN, 0.1 mg/l TP No Action Controllable Load E3 18

19 Deriving the Draft Phase III Planning Targets: Nitrogen 19

20 Deriving the Draft Phase III Planning Targets: Phosphorus 20

21 Proposed Draft Phase III Planning Targets: Nitrogen *Units = millions of pounds 21

22 Proposed Draft Phase III Planning Targets: Phosphorus *Units = millions of pounds 22

23 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Exchanges Assumed ratio for the TMDL 23

24 Allowing for Special Cases Previously agreed to consider special cases put forth by jurisdictions Consideration of special cases factored into four-month review process Final decisions on allowance of special cases will be made by the PSC in April

25 Proposed Draft Phase III Planning Targets: Nitrogen *Units = millions of pounds 25

26 Proposed Draft Phase III Planning Targets: Phosphorus *Units = millions of pounds 26

27 Planning Targets Previous agreement that CBP would use the planning target method with the new models to calculate planning targets Discussion at yesterday s WQGIT suggesting that planning targets could be calculated based on running Phase II WIPs in the Phase 6 model No agreement on how special cased will be handled 27

28 Accounting for Growth in the Jurisdictions Phase III WIPs Karl Berger, MWCOG, CBP Land Use Workgroup Chair and Peter Claggett, USGS, CBP Land Use Workgroup Coordinator 28

29 Accounting for Growth Watershed population is increasing by over 1 million persons/decade The Partnership s Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model estimates land use and wastewater impacts of future population growth. Previous agreement: Develop the WIPs on 2025 land use conditions which enabled the use and crediting of planning and conservation efforts to help account for growth 29

30 Future Growth Scenarios 1. Historic Trends: Continuation of historic trends (Available now) 2. Current Zoning: continuation of historic trends constrained by existing local zoning. Includes the best available regional and local data representing current conditions (available in January) 3. Conservation Plus: continuation of historic trends constrained by local zoning, aggressive land conservation, accelerated infill/redevelopment, densification of urban areas, avoidance of riparian areas, 100-year floodplains, frequently flooded soils, areas subject to sea-level rise and storm surge, and soils unsuitable for on-site septic systems (available in March 2018) 30

31 Forest Conversion to Development Farmland Conversion to Development Current Zoning Scenario 31

32 Proposed Draft Phase III WIP Planning Targets: Nitrogen Increase in load running Phase II WIPs on 2025 rather than 2010 using historic trends 32

33 Proposed Draft Phase III WIP Planning Targets: Phosphorus Increase in load running Phase II WIPs on 2025 rather than 2010 using historic trends 33

34

35

36 Accounting for Growth Jurisdictions develop WIPs on projected 2025 land uses Jurisdictions can choose: Historic Trends Current Zoning Conservation Plus Subset of Conservation Plus 36

37 Conowingo Dam Infill: How Much, Who, How, and By When Lee Currey, MDE, CBP Modeling Workgroup Co-Chair 37

38 Estimated Loads to the Bay with Conowingo Dam and Reservoir at Infill Conditions Almost all of the nutrients are from upstream sources Much of the nutrients are biologically available to algae when they enter tidal waters Some of the nutrients are scoured from the bottom sediments behind the dam Much of these scoured nutrients are not biologically available to algae when they enter tidal waters Therefore, the determination of nutrient loads to be reduced to account for Conowingo infill must factor in the type of nutrients and the timing of delivery 38

39 Conowingo Average Annual Nitrogen Delivery Conowingo Effect on Loads at the WIP2 condition Millions WIP2 (91-00) 2010 WIP2 DE (91-00) Conowingo Average Annual Phosphorus Delivery NH3X NO23 ORGN TOTN Millions WIP2 (91-00) 2010 WIP2 DE (91-00) PO4X PIPX ORGP TOTP Millions Conowingo Average Annual Suspended Solids Delivery 1863 TSSX WIP2 (91-00) 2010 WIP2 DE (91-00) 39

40 Calculate Conowingo Effect Deep Water Designated Use Volume WIP Red Percent WIP red volume WIP + Conowingo WIP+C red volume CB3MH DW % % 0 CB4MH DW % % 158 MD5MH DW % % 23 VA5MH DW % % 0 POMMH DW % % 0 CB3MH DC % % 0 CB4MH DC % % 171 MD5MH DC % % 0 VA5MH DC % % Conowingo Difference 64 Volume Weighted means a red area increase of 64 million cubic meters

41 Estimating the Conowingo effect Lower than the estimated additional loads Conowingo Effect is 7.7% reduction in N and P from the Susquehanna 6.0 Mlbs of N and 0.26 Mlbs of P The 6 million N and.26 million P is exchangeable between N and P and between basins

42 Viewpoints Why should states that are not part of the Susquehanna have to do additional work because of the Conowingo? All states have benefitted from the existence of the Conowingo in the past. Allocations would have been lower for all had it not been trapping nutrients. It may not be feasible for the Susquehanna states to make all reductions Reductions are more effective in the upper bay than elsewhere What responsibility does Exelon have? 42

43 How much? Who? How to Offset the Additional Loads Due to Conowingo Dam Infill How? Allocation equity rules used in the Bay TMDL Assign additional load as local planning goal When? By 2025 Post-2025 with agreed-upon date Beyond 2025 no future date identified 43

44 Some basins on higher line to make up for the Conowingo effect

45 New proposal: Increase slope of the line to account for Conowingo

46 Estimated Additional Nitrogen Reductions Required Under the Five Options *Units: millions of pounds 46

47 Estimated Additional Phosphorus Reductions Required Under the Five Options *Units: millions of pounds 47

48 Proposed Recommendation to PSC Assign the Conowingo Load to a separate implementation plan with a goal of zero Identify a source of pooled resources to implement BMPs in a costeffective manner Pooled resources from participating jurisdictions would be managed (both in terms of allocation of funds and verification / tracking of reductions) by a third party under partnership oversight.

49 49

50 Factoring in Climate Change into the Jurisdictions Phase III WIPs Mark Bennett, USGS, CBP Climate Resiliency Workgroup Chair 50

51 Accounting for Changing Conditions Cumulative Assessment of Bay Low Dissolved Oxygen Impacts 51

52 Estimated Changes in Watershed and Bay Loads by 2025 Due to Climate Change Inorganic nutrients are increased with climate change Organic nutrients are decreased Inorganic nutrients have a higher effect on dissolved oxygen

53 Calculate Climate Effect Volume Weighted means a red area increase of 80 million cubic meters

54 Estimating Climate Effect Greater than the watershed TN and TP effect Climate Effect is 9.6% reduction in N and P from the Susquehanna 7.5 Mlbs of N and 0.33 Mlbs of P The 7.5 million N and.33 million P from the Susquehanna converts to 9.1 million N and 0.49 P Basin-Wide

55 WQGIT & Modeling Workgroup Recommendations: Nitrogen 55

56 WQGIT & Modeling Workgroup Recommendations: Phosphorus 56

57

58

59 Two Policy Approaches Numeric and/or Programmatic 59

60 Agreement to Recommendation a dual approach on climate change 1.Adopt a programmatic approach to address climate change Include a narrative strategy in the Phase III WIPs that describes the jurisdictions current action plans and strategies to address climate change, as well as the jurisdiction-specific nutrient pollutant loadings due to 2025 climate change conditions Incorporate local priorities (e.g., flooding) and actions to address climate change impacts Document the current understanding of the science and identify the research gaps and needs, and what we hope to learn over time Identify a date by which the Partnership will provide additional science and information to help inform implementation efforts to address climate change 60

61 Agreement to Recommendation a dual approach on climate change Document and communicate additional nutrient pollutant loads of up to 9 million pounds of nitrogen and 0.5 million pounds of phosphorus due to 2025 climate change conditions Continue to understand the nature and effect of climate change impacts in the watershed and estuary to inform management strategies (e.g., WIP/2-year milestones) By [insert date], develop recommendations for new and/or refined methods and modeling techniques to better assess projected impacts on watershed loads and estuarine impacts for a range of future scenarios By [insert date], consider results of updated methods, techniques, and studies and revisit whether to explicitly account for those additional nutrient pollutant loads due to 2025 climate change conditions in the Phase III WIPs and/or 2-year milestones Identify a date (post-2025) by which the Partnership will fully address the additional nutrient pollutant loads in a Phase III WIP addendum and/or 2-year milestones 61

62 PSC Approved Schedule December 19-20, 2017: PSC 2-day retreat and decision making December 22, 2017: Release of draft Phase III WIP planning targets December 22, 2017 April 20, 2018: Partnership s review of the draft Phase III WIP planning targets Late April/Early May 2018: PSC approval of the final Phase III WIP planning targets with any agreed-to special cases May 7, 2018: Release of the final Phase III WIP planning targets 62